You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Pentagon Confirms White Phosphorus Use in Fallujah
2005-11-16
Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians. Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. "It was not used against civilians," Venable said.

The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions. We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."

The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.

Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive. The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The department later said its statement had been incorrect. "There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory. White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
Burn Em Out, shoot em when they run!

EP
Posted by:Wheting Omuns4432

#32  When will the Pentagon confess to the criminal use of GUNPOWDER in Iraq?
Posted by: Whutch Threth6418   2005-11-16 21:59  

#31  Again,

Burn Em Out, shoot em when they run!

EP
Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding   2005-11-16 18:26  

#30  ...blogs like the 'Burg managing to get a lot of the truth out to the public.

Bless the 'burg founders hearts.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-11-16 17:18  

#29  Gletch,

That's because it is treason. The liberal media are solidly against the US in this war. That includes Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, the NYT, the LAT, and the BBC. I wouldn't blame Marines who punched out reporters from any of these outfits. The ink-stained wretches are more dangerous in the long run than Al-Qaida because this war, like Vietnam, will be won or lost in America, not overseas. If we find the guts to stick it out over there it will be in spite of all the MSM could do to persuade us to quit--and because of blogs like the 'Burg managing to get a lot of the truth out to the public.
Posted by: mac   2005-11-16 15:32  

#28  this 'lawfare' stuff is getting tiring, sighs. i wish someone in the pentagon would just say grow up to the little commie's.
Posted by: Shep UK   2005-11-16 15:26  

#27  NEWSFLASH:

"American Armed Forces Admit to Killing Enemy Combatants and Breaking Things Since the Founding".
Posted by: Special Rapporteur   2005-11-16 15:17  

#26  WP = chemical weapons = WMD to the MSM.
No real story here just the one the MSM is predictably trying to create.

Sorry but I have to keep repeating this. Reporters are the enemy. You attack the enemy. You don't make excuses for them. The MSM wants AQ to win. OBL is a hero to them. They can't be allowed to use "freedom of the press" as a refuge. Just because 1/10 of 1% of them "are on our side" doesn't give them a free ride and free reign to be part of our destruction.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2005-11-16 14:56  

#25  So does this mean white phosphorus has now replaced depleted uranium on the lefty list as DEADLIEST WEAPON OF ALL TIME!!!
Posted by: tu3031   2005-11-16 12:50  

#24  The stuff coming out of the collective mouth of the liberal demos sounds a lot like treason.
Posted by: Gletch Whomong5036   2005-11-16 12:39  

#23  The loonies are in an absolute frenzy over at Huffnpuff's. Calls for trying the soldiers who used this "chemical weapon" as war criminals and equating the use of willy pete with saddam gassing the Kurds. It's really hard to believe the level of insanity over there.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-11-16 12:32  

#22  So what's the problem???
Posted by: Gletch Whomong5036   2005-11-16 12:26  

#21  Pentagon Officials Admit Using Chemical Weapon White Phosphorous In Fallujah Battle... This from Arianna Huffnpuff"s blog.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-11-16 12:20  

#20  Why did I not give a sh*t, besides 'they're the enemy' and desensitization to the MSM's latest memes?

Because this is OLD NEWS. I'd heard about it way earlier this year from 1LT Neil Prakash's blogpost about 8 November 2004:
In preparation for the assault, artillery guns dropped white phosphorus or “Willy Pete” on the city."
Posted by: Edward Yee   2005-11-16 11:16  

#19  Ah yes, to fight the "good" fight, and be PC.
We need to allow our military to fight without getting their hands slapped.
Haw, AP, if we would have blocked food and water, someone would have insisted on tube feeding them.
Posted by: Jan   2005-11-16 10:28  

#18  #15 As a Man who was in Fallujah last November, I can say I saw its use, and I approve of its use! Crispy Critters, Eat them up, Yum Good!
Posted by Bamaman 2005-11-16 09:34|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top
___________

Hey Bamaman: If you were with the MARINES, and I'm assuming you were, do you know Cpl. Ryan D. Groves? Lost a leg to an RPG around late October 2004 just on the outskirts of Fallujah.

I created this page to help him out:

HELP A WOUNDED MARINE: CPL. RYAN D. GROVES
Posted by: The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen   2005-11-16 10:02  

#17  WP is great for clearing bunkers and caves. The dense white smoke penetrates vents and escape routes, and marks their locations on the surface with plumes. Can't be breathed, burns, good marker; what's not to like? A couple of things - it can drift back onto you, and the grenades are heavy, limiting throw range. Long-fused too, if I recall.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2005-11-16 09:59  

#16  WP is great for destroying weapons too. Also good for clearing out a room. Throw a WP grenade in there and watch 'em run! Of course, you have covering fire on all exits to mow 'em down as they flee...
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-11-16 09:38  

#15  As a Man who was in Fallujah last November, I can say I saw its use, and I approve of its use! Crispy Critters, Eat them up, Yum Good!
Posted by: Bamaman   2005-11-16 09:34  

#14  Contrary to another popular myth, it does not burn particularly fiercely

Tell that to Hank Erwin.
Posted by: Elmalet Juting3430   2005-11-16 09:19  

#13  I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by: Corporal Hicks   2005-11-16 09:13  

#12  

The liberals would like our combat soldiers to use stern looks and harsh language. Maybe even a "time-out" or two.

TV-Man
Posted by: TV-Man   2005-11-16 08:46  

#11  Because of this, WP has long had a secondary role as an incendiary, either directly or more usually as a "first fire" material. Contrary to another popular myth, it does not burn particularly fiercely, especially in comparison to other incendiaries like thermite. As an incendiary, it is most effective against highly flammable targets like very dry vegetation or petrol, oils and lubricants. However a WP fire does have the special difficulty that if extinguished with water, even to the point of being quite cold, it may reignite later when it dries out and exposes the WP to the air again.

The use of incendiary bombs against civilian targets or concentrations of civilians with no military function is forbidden by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Although the US ratified Protocols I and II of the Convention, it does not appear to have adopted Protocol III into US law.

Even looking at Protocol III, though, one gathers the use of WP in Fallujah would be permissible.

I. 1. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

II.
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Posted by: Groluque Omeart4634   2005-11-16 08:37  

#10  From Vietnam: "Willie Peter--makes 'em a believah!"
Posted by: mac   2005-11-16 07:46  

#9  The tought of willie-peter on a terrorist instead of a 5.56mm is kinda good. I suspect the terrorist pucker factor goes up sharply at the thought of the wp in a closed room providing a psychological advantage.
Posted by: anymouse   2005-11-16 07:40  

#8  ...Well, a great deal of this comes from the fact that
1)it's almost impossible to find a reporter who has ANY significant military experience, so their chances of actually knowing what's being referred to here are slim and none.
2)it's almost impossible to find a reporter who is willing to do the heavy lifting to research if something like this is actually true. (And when you consider that 'heavy lifting' means Googling, for God's sake, you see how bad this is.)
3)it's almost impossible to find a reporter who doesn't loathe the military enough to just simply pass something like this on.

Legend has had it for nearly 40 years that the press lost us the war in Vietnam. One can argue that point, but if we lose here, there will be NO question the Media led the way.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2005-11-16 07:25  

#7  Next bogus claim: US uses lead, a known toxic agent, in Iraq. If it's toxic, it must be a chemical weapon, right commies?
Posted by: Dave   2005-11-16 05:48  

#6  At first it seemed that the esteemed Italian 'intellectuals' had confused phosophorus with phosgene. Although phosgene was banned by the Hague Convention of 1907, use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty. Then it came clear that the anti-war anti-US commies are just picking at us for not signing the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) which prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations.
Posted by: GK   2005-11-16 05:34  

#5  
Phospherous is used by all armys from marking low and high points of a target (bracketing) just before firing on the enemy's position to being used in many high explosives.

Goof balls are trying to say that stuff is all of a sudden banned chemical weapons.

Not so. Morons these libs are...
Posted by: RG   2005-11-16 02:50  

#4  WTF -- they're gotta die anyway. Better them than us.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-11-16 01:06  

#3  Maybe we should have just levelled the place and avoided the controversy over Willie Pete. No, then we would have been criticized for indiscriminate bombing. Maybe we should have blocked off the place, no water, no food and starved them out. Hmm...that does not bear up to criticism either. Maybe we should have given them all doughnuts and coffee. No, too many trans fatty acids. I dunno. It's a quagmire™.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-11-16 01:01  

#2  Article: It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.

As opposed to your standard 5.56mm hi-velocity round, which can remove big chunks of exposed or unexposed human flesh.
Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852   2005-11-16 00:34  

#1  More much ado about nothing. "Insurgents" tend to be combatant civilians who look a helluva lot like noncombantant civilians when pacified -- ie killed. Noncombatant civilians were given ample opportunity to exit Fallujah. Next "atrocity"....
Posted by: Hupeasing Jatch2629   2005-11-16 00:06  

00:00